(12-16-2023 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (12-16-2023 01:34 AM)Sactowndog Wrote: (11-18-2023 12:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Ultimately, I think the 10 departing members played with fire in attempting to assert that they still had voting rights in the first place. I honestly don’t think Oregon State and Washington State were going to withhold revenue distributions from the departing 10 this year, but when the departing 10 attempted to interpret the applicable withdrawal notice by-law in a way that they still had voting rights (which was contrary to the how the league had it applied it to USC, UCLA and Colorado), they also unwittingly opened up the prospect that the revenue distribution by-law could be interpreted differently.
I think everyone reasonably knows how the by-laws were intended to be interpreted: departing members lose voting rights upon notice of withdrawal, but continue to receive revenue until they *actually* withdraw provided that it’s not until after the GOR expires (8/1/2024). That is how it has generally worked in other conferences (such as the Big 12).
The way that the by-laws are written, though, could be interpreted that either a school loses both its voting rights and revenue upon notice of withdrawal or they keep their voting rights and revenue until *actual* withdrawal. The departing 10 pushed the voting issue and tried to tie it to the date of actual withdrawal, but that opened up a path for OSU/WSU to now conceivably claim to keep the departing 10’s revenue upon merely notice of withdrawal that could give OSU/WSU an even greater legal win than originally anticipated. Make no mistake: the blame is entirely on the departing 10 here. They played with the proverbial fire from a legal perspective and are now at risk of getting totally burned.
Your point about playing with fire is a good one. The second paragraph ignores a key point regarding significant conference liabilities that were occurred in previous years. The 10 want revenue unencumbered by the liabilities where the two want them to pay their fair share. How that point plays out is a big deal.
Seems to me that the "House" lawsuit is the big worry for the P2. IIRC, the defendants in that case are the NCAA and each of the P5 conferences.
Let's say that House wins, damages are $3 Billion, and the NCAA as a whole is deemed to be on the hook for 50% of the damages, and each P5 conference is on the hook for 10%. I am just pulling these %s out of my arse but let's say. Then if the P2 "are" the PAC12, which they seem to be earnestly claiming in all the other court cases, then those two could be on the hook for 10% of the payout, or $300 million, or $150 million each. Whereas for say a 16-school SEC, each member would owe about $19 million. A huge hit for sure but not catastrophic.
This IMO gives the departing 10 considerably long-run leverage. The P2 would want to be able to spread that PAC liability across all 12 members. But there might not be any way to do that without their consent, as they would be out of the conference. Those departers would only owe the 1/18 share of B1G liability, 1/14 share of B12 liability, etc., whatever their share of the liability of their new conferences are.
So IMO, while the P2 won a big victory today, they still face a daunting prospect. When you claim to own the whole house, you own the whole house, its assets and its liabilities. So I suspect some kind of deal will be reached that gives those departers a large chunk of this year's revenue in exchange for "being in the PAC fold" for the purposes of House liability payouts, or somesuch.
So IMO despite this big court win, the P2 IMO are still on some precarious grounds. They won control over the P2 by correctly pointing to the precedent (in terms of conference practice) that when you announce you are leaving, you lose voting rights. But on the other hand, the precedent has also been that those who have announced they are leaving keep getting PAC payouts until they actually leave. Now, the P2 is trying to change that, which the original trial judge, who said he expects the P2 to treat the D10 fairly, might not like.
And, by insisting (as IIRC they have) that those two are now the PAC, they have set themselves up to be on the hook for a massive House liability should damages be apportioned not directly at schools, but directly at the NCAA and each P5 conference. So I am not sure the P2 will come out of this smelling like roses.
But then again, IANAL. We'll see.
'House' is actually two lawsuits, with three separate claims.
Let's start with the first claim, that athletes have been denied NIL compensation for use in electronic games. The games are more valuable if they have "real" teams and "real" players. Let's skip any damages but look at injunctions against future behavior. EA Sports is not going to be able to use "real" players without permission (i.e., unless they compensate the players).
EA Sports would probably be in trouble if "generic LSU QB" has Heisman quality performances, wears number 5, and has darker skin, even if LSU had licensed use of its stadium and uniforms.
I'm not sure that the players can establish that EA Sports would have come out with a college football game sooner but for the NCAA preventing NIL compensation.
Only P5 football and men's basketball are in the certified class, because those are the only college sports games. A women's lacrosse game is unlikely to repay the development and marketing costs.
The second claim is that P5 football and basketball players (men and women) have been denied NIL compensation for appearing in football and basketball games. Only these sports have significant commercial media value.
To demonstrate that these athletes suffered tangible damages, the plaintiff's expert estimated that 75% of a conference media deal was for football, 15% for men's basketball, 5% for women's basketball, and 5% for all other sports. They then estimated that players would have received 10% of revenue.
As an example, a conference with a $500M media contract would have $375M in football revenue, with $37.5M of NIL value. Divide by 14 schools and 85 athletes per school, that comes out to $31,513.
Should the plaintiffs prevail, the court will likely appoint a special master to determine individual damages - or there might be a settlement which class members could accept or litigate on their own.
The defendants will likely be enjoined from broadcasting any games without the consent of the players, who will expect compensation. The networks will not risk broadcasting, and will instead withhold payment to the conferences for failure to provide the games. The conferences won't be able to get consent from the players. So it will be the schools that negotiate deals.
Players for Alabama and Georgia will want more than those for Vanderbilt, so there will payments based on playing in OTA games, and ratings, etc. The schools might be able to fund the difference out of their other revenues, but there will be a push to have differential payouts to higher performing schools.
But since it is the schools and conferences that are benefiting from not paying NIL to players, they will be the ones paying the damages, not the NCAA.
G5 players will get much smaller payments, if any. The richest programs spend 5% of revenue on scholarships; the poorer programs closer to 15%. The P5 are directing revenues to coaches and gilding the locker rooms and stadium suites.
The third claim is that athletes that are receiving 3rd-party NIL since the NCAA suspended their restrictions, would have received NIL money before then, and are entitled to retroactive payments as damages.
But who benefits from the 3rd Party Collectives? Not the NCAA. It is the P5 schools who attract better talent.
